[Buddha-l] Fsat Mnifdlunses?

[Richard Hayes]

On Aug 13, 2009, at 7:51 PM, Dan Lusthaus wrote:

> but, after due consideration, when
> it is determined that someone is simply wrong, it is important to  
> point that
> out.

If there are practical consequences, yes. If someone mistakenly  
believes a traffic light is green when it is in fact red, then it is  
important to point that out. It cold prevent an accident. If someone  
believes that dharmas have svabhāvas, on the other hand, no harm can  
possibly come from that. Nor can any harm at all come from thinking  
that there are realities outside the mind, or in thinking that some  
Yogācāra thinkers denied that there is a material world that exists  
independent of any awareness of it.

> When a mistake has become embedded in the discourse so deeply that it
> seems almost impossible to extirpate, all the more reason to roll up  
> one's
> sleeves and try to set the record straight. Otherwise we all become  
> mere
> dawdlers.

I much prefer dawdling to undertaking utterly pointless work. Truth  
is, I don't give a rat's donkey about most things that philosophers  
get all excited about.

> Yogacara was not idealism in the sense most people repeatedly claim.  
> That is
> simply a fact.

You have more confidence than I that there is a fact to the matter. In  
such issues as this, I see many opinions, but I see nothing that comes  
even close to a fact.

> That they have been accused of being idealists for at least
> 1500 years by opponents who wanted to make them look ridiculous is  
> also a
> fact (and hence labeling such assaults "malicious" is just).

How presumptuous of you to think you can know the motives of the  
opponents of Yogācāra. Why assume that they were driven to make  
others look ridiculous? Not all men are like you, Dr Lusthaus. Perhaps  
the opponents realized the Yogācāra position failed to make much  
sense and were compassionately trying to help them avoid making fools  
of themselves.

> When someone (e.g., Pereira, Eliade) argues that Buddha -- in the Pali
> texts -- is really arguing FOR an atmanic self, generosity can go  
> just so
> far. Pointing out that they are wrong, and showing why, is a duty,  
> unless
> one enjoys wading in unnecessary muck.

I guess it's not so obvious to me that those folks (Pereira, Eliade,  
C.A.F. Rhys Davids et al.) were wrong. I can see merit in their view,  
as I can see merit in the view that some Buddhists tried to stake  
their turf by holding a view that no one else held, even if the view  
flew in the face of all evidence. (Collins seems to hold a position a  
bit like that. All the sensible views of self had been taken, so if he  
wanted to take a number that hadn't already been taken, the Buddha had  
to deny the self. A clever marketing ploy, nothing more than that.) In  
the final analysis, I don't think it matters in the slightest. So I  
think your sense of duty is the pathetic strutting of a man in need of  
a great cause to fight for.


Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico
http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes
rhayes at unm.edu